Long dead,human exceptionalism is gradually being buried unlamented.

Peter Singer Thinks Intellectually Disabled Less Valuable than Pigs

Wesley J. Smith

In his apologetics for infanticide, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer has used a baby with Down syndrome as an example of a killable infant based on utilitarian measurements. (He actually supports infanticide because babies -- whether disabled or not -- are, in his view, not "persons.")

To Singer, moral value primarily comes from intellectual capacities, and that means developmentally and cognitively disabled human beings (also, the unborn and infants) have less value than other human beings, and indeed, a lower worth than some animals.

Were society ever to adopt Singer's bigoted anti-human exceptionalism views, it would mark the end of universal human rights, opening the door to tyrannical campaigns against the most weak and vulnerable -- you know, the kind of people that the Singers of the world deem resource wasters.

It would also break the spine of unconditional love, as our children would have to earn their place by possessing requisite capacities.

Consider the recent statements by Singer, published in the Journal of Practical Ethics, in which he explains why he would adopt out a child with Down syndrome. He then expresses a profound bigotry against people with cognitive and developmental disabilities (emphasis added):

For me, the knowledge that my [hypothetical Down] child would not be likely to develop into a person whom I could treat as an equal, in every sense of the word, who would never be able to have children of his or her own, who I could not expect to grow up to be a fully independent adult, and with whom I could expect to have conversations about only a limited range of topics would greatly reduce my joy in raising my child and watching him or her develop.

"Disability" is a very broad term, and I would not say that, in general, "a life with disability" is of less value than one without disability. Much will depend on the nature of the disability.

But let's turn the question around, and ask why someone would deny that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being is of less value than the life of a normal human being. Most people think that the life of a dog or a pig is of less value than the life of a normal human being.

On what basis, then, could they hold that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being with intellectual capacities inferior to those of a dog or a pig is of equal value to the life of a normal human being? This sounds like speciesism to me, and as I said earlier, I have yet to see a plausible defence of speciesism. After looking for more than forty years, I doubt that there is one.

Invidious discrimination exists when equals -- e.g., all human beings -- are denigrated as unequal based on some category that the bigot believes reduces the status of the discriminated against human, e.g., racism, sexism, and Singer-style discrimination against people with cognitive or developmental disabilities.

But human beings and animals do not inhabit the same moral realm. It is not wrong or discrimination to view and treat us differently than we do them.

Moreover, the very concept of "speciesism" -- used liberally in animal rights activism and bioethics -- is inherently and invidiously anti-human because it reduces us to so many carbon molecules with no inherent value beyond our cognitive capabilities at the moment of measurement. To repeat myself, the idea of speciesism, like utilitarianism, makes universal human rights impossible to sustain intellectually.

Assuming such utilitarian values would destroy the principles of Western civilization. And never mind the real capacities of many people with Down, whom Singer mischaracterizes, or their extraordinary loving natures -- which I have yet to see Singer opine much about. To Singer, intellect trumps all.

That's bigotry any way you look at it, no different from racism, except that his victims are less able to defend themselves.

I have always found it odd that Singer faces little of the opprobrium society metes out to other bigots. Indeed, he was brought to Princeton from Australia and given one of the world's most prestigious chairs in bioethics precisely because of these attitudes.

Despite supporting the propriety of killing babies, I have no doubt that Singer will continue to be the New York Times' favorite philosopher.

Yet more parody defying absurdity From OOL science.

Here We Go Again: For Complex Life, Just Add Fertilizer
Evolution News & Views

It's such an easy point. A child can grasp it. You may have all the ingredients you want, in the right quantities, but without a builder, nothing functionally complex will emerge. Here, we'll bring you tons of lumber, nails, and pipe. Need wire? Have all you want. Anything else? Just ask, and we'll throw it in at no extra charge: screws, paint, glass. Why, we will even lay a bunch of tools on the ground beside the pile.

Now, let it sit there, exposed to the sun and rain for as long as you like. Billions of years even. How many expect a house or a skyscraper to emerge by natural causes alone?

Evolutionists seem strangely immune to the obviousness of the logic here. They want to explain life's origin and complexity by reference to the availability of building blocks alone. Remember those who tried to account for the  Cambrian explosion by the rise of oxygen? And  origin of life by "a pinch of thickener" in a jumble of common molecules? Look, we can make it much, much easier for evolution. We will even arrange all the atoms into amino acids, sugars, fats and complex organic compounds and dump them into the oceans. Have some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, citric acid, purines and pyrimidines, all brought special delivery by comets and asteroids. Plop! Into the primordial soup they go. Here, have some energy! Have all the UV light, lightning, and volcanoes you want.

The only rule is: no chemists, no mind, and no intelligence.

In  Illustra's film Origin, Discovery Institute biologist Ann Gauger has a pithy way of explaining the hopelessness of natural processes acting on building blocks. "If I put amino acids in a test tube in my lab, even if I added heat and shook it up real well, and kept doing that for a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years, or a million years, nothing would happen."

Evolutionists must play by the rules they agreed to. Discovery Institute's Paul Nelson explains the rules in the film:

When you come to the origin of life, the rules -- and this isn't the science itself, this is the underlying philosophy -- the rules say, to solve the problem, you can use matter and energy, and natural law, natural regularities and chance processes, but that exhausts your toolkit. What you're not allowed to use, fundamentally by the rules, so-called rules of science, is mind or intelligence. If you had to attach a name to this position, you can't do better than scientific materialism: a philosophy that tells you "the only acceptable explanation has to be rendered in terms of matter and energy." And if you can't solve the problem using those tools, you're not allowed to change the rules. So from that perspective, how did life come to be via matter and energy alone? Now: try to solve the problem. [Emphasis added.]
To go from microbes to animals presents the same problem, because the same rules apply. Put building blocks into the hand of natural selection, add energy, and once again, nothing will happen. Natural selection is natural, not intelligent. It is matter and energy in motion. It has no foresight. It has no direction. It has no goal. Mindless entities do not compete. They do not try to outdo each other in the struggle for life. Without a mind or plan, natural selection cannot select. In a real sense, natural selection is a restatement of, "Whatever will be, will be." If everything goes extinct in the next meteor strike, so be it. Nobody cares in Darwin's world.

Yet paper after paper appears that fudges on the established rules. A recent example is found in Nature, where Reinhard et al. try to account for the rise of complex life by linking it to the rise of available phosphorus after billions of years. The news from Georgia Tech reads like a myth:

For three billion years or more, the evolution of the first animal life on Earth was ready to happen, practically waiting in the wings. But the breathable oxygen it likely required wasn't there, and a lack of simple nutrients may have been to blame.
Then came a fierce planetary metamorphosis. Roughly 800 million years ago, in the late Proterozoic Eon, phosphorus, a chemical element essential to all life, began to accumulate in shallow ocean zones near coastlines widely considered to be the birthplace of animals and other complex organisms, according to a new study by geoscientists from the Georgia Institute of Technology and Yale University.

Here we go again. Poor animals; they were trying to evolve, but they couldn't breathe. They needed fertilizer.

Picture again our lumber pile, now with bags of fertilizer next to everything. Picture Ann Gauger's test tube. Add some phosphorus. Bubble in some oxygen. Any help? How will simply adding more building blocks build a building?

But, the scientists object, we're talking about living cells before the first animals. Right. Saturate the oceans with bacteria, toss in the phosphorus, and watch the oxygen levels rise. Do they really expect trilobites, worms, and crustaceans to appear?

We place our phosphorus record in a quantitative biogeochemical model framework and find that a combination of enhanced phosphorus scavenging in anoxic, iron-rich oceans and a nutrient-based bistability in atmospheric oxygen levels could have resulted in a stable low-oxygen world. The combination of these factors may explain the protracted oxygenation of Earth's surface over the last 3.5 billion years of Earth history. However, our analysis also suggests that a fundamental shift in the phosphorus cycle may have occurred during the late Proterozoic eon (between 800 and 635 million years ago), coincident with a previously inferred shift in marine redox states, severe perturbations to Earth's climate system, and the emergence of animals.
The "emergence of animals." Evidently, those animals were waiting for their phosphorus order to arrive.

Let's review what's required for animal body plans that appeared abruptly at the Cambrian explosion: (1) new cell types, (2) new tissues, (3) new organs, (4) new genes, (5) new gene regulatory networks (GRNs), (6) new systems (digestive, muscular, skeletal, reproductive, central nervous systems, brains, etc.), (7) new levels of hierarchical integration of these systems, (8) new behaviors, (9) new defenses, (10) the ability to grow all these things from a single zygote.

The authors of the paper collected thousands of samples of shallow ocean sediment deposits, and carefully measured their phosphorus levels.

Theoretical predictions and observations from the geochemical record provide strong evidence that the first 80%-90% of Earth's 4.5-billion-year history was characterized by limited P burial in near-shore sediments, a pattern that we link to high C/P ratios in primary producers resulting from an Fe-based nutrient P trap. The shale record we present here, when coupled with our ocean-sediment biogeochemical model, illuminates an Earth system state in which dynamically coupled P- and N-limitation stabilized surface oxygen levels on billion-year timescales. However, there is evidence for at least periodic shifts away from pervasive Fe-rich waters in the late Tonian, or Ediacaran periods, coincident with our observed increase in sedimentary P enrichments. We propose that models seeking to explain the transition to an oxygen-rich ocean-atmosphere system in which early animals thrived and complex ecosystems developed should focus on mechanisms for overcoming enhanced P scavenging and transiting the N-fixation barrier that would act to prevent P-driven increases in ocean-atmosphere O2 levels during nascent global oxygenation events.
Minus the jargon:

The elevated availability of nutrients and bolstered oxygen also likely fueled evolution's greatest lunge forward.
They backpedal a little, saying, "The researchers are careful not to imply that phosphorous necessarily caused the chain reaction, but in sedimentary rock taken from coastal areas, the nutrient has marked the spot where that burst of life and climate change took off." So instead, they explain, "That first signal of phosphorus in Earth's coast shallows pops up in the shale record like a shot from a starting pistol in the race for abundant life."

Ah, now it all makes sense. Someone go over to our pile of lumber and fire a pistol.

The daily mail is Britain's blight?:Pros and cons.

Paying the bills with lottery tickets?

The “All Outcomes Are Equiprobable” Argument

Cornelius Hunter

 

 

I’ve been busy lately with a big landscaping job for the neighborhood evolutionist. He wanted a massive set of stones to be carefully arranged in his backyard. He wanted stones of different colors, and the careful arrangement would spell out “Evolution Is True.”

Unfortunately, the day I finished this big job there was an earthquake in the neighborhood which jumbled the stones I had carefully arranged. I had to go back to the evolutionist’s property and put the stones back in order.

To makes matters worse, the evolutionist wouldn’t pay me for the job. When I sued him he told the judge that I was lying. He said I didn’t do the job, but instead the arrangement of the stones was due to the recent earthquake.

I explained to the judge that such an event would be unlikely, but the evolutionist retorted that landscapers don’t understand probability. The evolutionist explained to the judge that all outcomes are equally probable. Every outcome, whether it spells out “Evolution Is True” or nothing at all, has a probability of one divided by the total number of possible arrangements. He said that I was committing a mistake that is common with nonscientific and uneducated people. He explained that if you toss a coin 500 times the sequence of heads and tails will be astronomically unlikely. But it happened. All such sequences, even if they spell out a message in Morse code, are equiprobable.

The judge agreed. He fined me for bringing a frivolous lawsuit against the evolutionist and made me write “Evolution Is True” 500 times.

Toward a theory of devolution? III

Fasten Your Seat Belt; Behe’s Darwin Devolves Launches Today!
David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer

To judge from the debate so far around Michael Behe’s book Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution, you would think it had been out for weeks. But no! You can only get a copy as of today, the official publication date. The book completes the trilogy that began with Darwin’s Black Box, which introduced the phrase “intelligent design” to many people around the world. But its critique, going to the core of evolutionary theory, stands on its own.

“Darwin’s mechanism,” Behe shows in the new book, “works chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain.” That’s unguided evolution for you! How such a blind and fundamentally wasteful process could fashion the vertebrate eye you use in reading this, or the gear teeth that send the planthopper on its wonderful leaps — to cite two examples of “fathomless elegance” that Behe discusses — is the question that conventional evolutionary theory can’t answer.

Behe’s celebratory publication event is tomorrow evening in Bethlehem, PA, with Eric Metaxas. But in case you are thinking about joining them, it’s sold out. You will need to get on a waiting list.

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

Interestingly, the book takes flight just three weeks after Discovery Institute shared the news that the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list had topped well over 1,000 PhD signers. That is, a thousand plus scientists who, in advancing the paradigm of design in biology over blind material forces alone, join Behe in being willing to see their careers and reputations abused for their candor. No evolutionist faces any similar threat.

Many more scientists are (prudently, often under Discovery Institute’s advice) waiting for the right time to step forward publicly. So Behe and Darwin Devolves represent far more than one biochemist on a lonely “quixotic” quest.

Now that the book is out, if the past few weeks are any guide, there will be ample turbulence ahead. Dr. Behe will be buffeted by winds of criticism, both fair and foul. There’s no surprise in that. Behe is the “Father of Intelligent Design,” according to Stephen Colbert. He is “close to heretical,” according to the New York Times Book Review. Of course they are going to come after him in fury.

Get your copy of Darwin Devolves today. And fasten your seat belt, please.

And still yet more demystifying of higher Ed.

John Stossel: What everyone's afraid to say about college and jobs

Today, all Americans are told, "Go to college!"

President Obama said, "College graduation has never been more valuable."

But economist Bryan Caplan says that most people shouldn't go.

"How many thousands of hours did you spend in classes studying subjects that you never thought about again?" he asks.

Lots, in my case. At Princeton, I learned to live with strangers, play cards and chase women, but I slept through boring lectures, which were most of them. At least tuition was only $2,000. Now it's almost $50,000.

"People usually just want to talk about the tuition, which is a big deal, but there's also all the years that people spend in school when they could have been doing something else," points out Caplan in my new YouTube video.

"If you just take a look at the faces of students, it's obvious that they're bored," he says. "People are there primarily in order to get a good job."

That sounds like a good reason to go to college. But Caplan, in his new book, "The Case Against Education," argues that there's little connection between what we absorb in college and our ability to do a job.

"It's totally true that when people get fancier degrees their income generally goes up," concedes Caplan, but "the reason why this is happening is not that college pours tons of job skills into you. The reason is ... a diploma is a signaling device."

It tells employers that you were smart enough to get through college.

But when most everyone goes to college, says Caplan, "You just raise the bar. Imagine you're at a concert, and you want to see better. Stand up and of course you'll see better. But if everyone stands up, you just block each other's views."

That's why today, he says, high-end waiters are expected to have college degrees.

"You aren't saying: you, individual, don't go to college," I interjected."You're saying we as a country are suckers to subsidize it."

"Exactly," replied Caplan. "Just because it is lucrative for an individual doesn't mean it's a good idea for a country."

Caplan says if students really want to learn, they can do it without incurring tuition debt.

"If you want to go to Princeton, you don't have to apply," he points out. "Just move to the town and start attending classes."

That's generally true. At most schools you can crash college lectures for free. But almost no one does that.

"In people's bones, they realize that what really counts is that diploma," concludes Caplan.

Because that diploma is now usually subsidized by taxpayers, college costs more. Tuition has risen at triple the rate of inflation.

It's not clear students learn more for their extra tuition, but colleges' facilities sure have gotten fancier. They compete by offering things like luxurious swimming pools and gourmet dining. That probably won't help you get a job.

"If you're doing computer science or electrical engineering, then you probably are actually learning a bunch of useful skills," Caplan says. But students now often major in abstract topics like social justice, diversity studies, multicultural studies.

"But don't the liberal arts expand people's minds?" I asked. Philosophy? Literature? Isn't it all making our brains work better?

"That's the kind of thing you expect teachers to say," answered Caplan. "There's a whole field of people who have actually studied this (and) they generally come away after looking at a lot of evidence saying, 'Wow, actually it's wishful thinking.'"

A study found that a third of people haven't detectably learned anything after four years in college.

Although Caplan thinks college is mostly a scam, he says there's one type of person who definitely benefits -- professors like him.

"I'm a tenured professor," he said. "A tenured professor cannot be fired. ... You got a nice income and there are almost no demands upon your time."

Professor Caplan is only expected to teach for five hours a week.

I told him that sounded like a government-subsidized rip-off.

"Yeah. Well, I'm a whistleblower," replied Caplan.

On treating non-academics like adults.

Naval Academy Philosopher: Laypeople Entitled to an Opinion on Science Questions

Sarah Chaffee

This sounds more than a bit like . Douglas Axe It's a   presentation given at the Conference of the Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice this past June by Larry Lengbeyer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the U.S. Naval Academy. The talk, "Defending Limited Non-Deference to Science Experts," explains logically why laypeople are not barred from disagreeing with scientists.

Of special interest is the section defending disagreement based on a perception of "untrustworthy science." Lengbeyer acknowledges that this is a tricky call for laypeople to make. However, he notes that people have access to credible scientific sources. And "some of the time, the outsider will have the ability to offer evaluations that deserve respect, including critical evaluations..." This is not common, but it happens. He lists more than 17 different logical flaws that a layperson may identify.

Let's take a look at some of his "critical evaluations" in light of the evolution debate. A non-scientist can reasonably take issue with scientists when:

[T]he theory has been confirmed/validated in highly artificial conditions, or with a data set that is limited in important ways, calling into question its applicability to other contexts...

This sounds a lot like the problems with current scenarios for the origin of life. Self-replicating RNA is designed in the lab, the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted under conditions very different from those scientists believe were the case on the early Earth, and hydrothermal vents may not be totally nurturing to life.

[T]he stated findings or conclusions are not convincingly warranted by the study results, on account of one or more methodological failures [overgeneralization, overstatement, cherry picking, possibly p-hacking]...

What are the problems with neo-Darwinism? Generally that natural selection acting on random mutation leads to microevolution (such as changes in the Galápagos finches) rather than macroevolution. When researchers claim that they have observed speciation in action, a closer look often reveals only small changes -- instances of breaking genes, not innovation of new information. Overgeneralization and overstatement are rampant.

I could list more -- "conclusions depend[ing] upon questionable factual assumptions" reminds me of multiverse explanations for fine-tuning, etc.

Axe explains the importance of allowing laypeople to weigh scientific arguments, using their own power of reason to arrive at a plausible opinion. He notes in:  

 Undeniable

...[O]pen science brings an end to authoritarian science by emphasizing the scientific value of public opinion. Because everyone practices common science, public reception of scientific claims is arguably the most significant form of peer review. For professional scientists to assume that public skepticism toward their ideas can only be caused by public ignorance is just plain arrogant. If ignorance is the cause, clearer teaching should be the remedy. When that proves elusive or ineffective, professional scientists need to be willing to find fault with their ideas, not the public.

This leads to the third piece of good news: Embracing open science empowers people who will never earn PhDs to become full participants in the scientific debates that matter to them. Instead of merely following expert debates, nonexperts should expect important issues that touch their lives to be framed in terms of common science. Once they are, everyone becomes qualified to enter the debate. This doesn't apply to intrinsically technical subjects, of course, but the matters of deepest importance to how we live are never intrinsically technical."

Logic wins over scientific groupthink. Lengbeyer concludes:

Many self-styled defenders of science call for a populace better educated in science, thinking that this will produce people who happily and humbly comply with science-based pronouncements. Now, the laity is indeed ignorant about the scientific method, but this produces an excess of deference, not a deficiency thereof, as there remains great ignorance about the contributions of imperfect, interested, biased, perspective-laden human judgment to scientific method. And this is compounded by an ignorance of the laity's own capacity for more direct involvement in science-based policymaking. The typical layperson is something like the woman of 1800 who believed the (perhaps sincere) assurances of the men in her life that she did not have the necessities for having a say in political or financial or intellectual matters.

If I am right, then the scientific world ought to take some of the medicine it prescribes to its public opponents, and humble itself intellectually. Acknowledging frankly the serious limitations of science (and not only the convenient one about the provisionality of its claims), and respecting non-scientists' rightful exercise of intellectual autonomy, might enhance the credibility of the scientific community and recoup some of its lost cultural authority. Science deserves a good deal of deference; science hubris and over-exclusivity do not.

...

In any case, non-scientists are decreasingly willing to diffidently place their personal choices in the hands of distant science-based authorities. There is likely no going back to such a world. Better to embrace the emerging participatory model, and to concentrate on elevating laypersons in respectful and empowering ways so that they can play their limited role competently, perhaps gradually increasing their science understanding so as to narrow the gulf between them and the experts.

The "participatory model" is a worthy complement to Axe's "common science."

King David,God incarnate:courtesy trinitarian logic

DAVID and the "HOLY QUADRINITY"

Bible translations are greatly influenced by the background, traditions, associations, and desires of the translators themselves. The original manuscripts of the Bible were written in a language which is no longer perfectly understood. Most Greek and Hebrew words had more than one meaning. (Some had a lot of different meanings.) The writing was entirely without capitalization or punctuation of any kind. The words were often abbreviated (especially in the OT Hebrew manuscripts) and usually one word ran into another with no spacing in between. (Like this:

"inbeginningwasthewdandthewdwaswiththegdandthewdwasgd"

[cf. John 1:1], except, of course, it was also in a different language that isn't completely understood today.)

So the modern Bible translator adds all punctuation as he sees fit. He capitalizes as he sees fit. He chooses the particular meaning for each word as he sees fit. He even adds words to bring out the meaning for modern readers as he sees fit. Obviously his own prejudices and values greatly color the translation he produces. If he is a trinitarian (as 99% are) or if he is translating a Bible for a trinitarian audience (as 99% are), it would be very strange if he did not capitalize, punctuate, choose word meanings, and add words that bring out a trinitarian interpretation.

For example, some trinitarian translators are so convinced (or are at least are producing a translation for an audience that is so convinced) that Jesus is Jehovah God that they translate Jehovah's statement at Exodus 3:14 as "the one who is called I AM [Jehovah God] has sent me..." and Jesus' statement at John 8:58 as "Before Abraham was born, 'I Am'." - Good News Bible.

They have chosen the meaning of "I am" at Ex. 3:14 in spite of the fact that it is an unlikely interpretation of the actual Hebrew (and Septuagint Greek) words used - (see the I AM study, "Exodus 3:14" sections). They have done this to back up their (or their readers') desires for a trinitarian interpretation for this passage (Jehovah is the "I Am" and Jesus is the "I Am" so they are both the same God) and to stick with the KJV tradition.

Some other trinitarian translators, however, are not willing to stretch honesty quite so thin in their attempts to back up their pre-conceived belief in a trinity. Trinitarian Dr. James Moffatt ("probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day"), for example, translated Ex. 3:14 as "I-will-be has sent you to them" and Jn 8:58 as "I have existed before Abraham was born." - See the I AM study.

To help show the truth-altering effect of the pre-conceived beliefs of many Bible translators I offer the following example. I will "prove" (using many of the very same techniques used by trinitarian translators and interpreters to "prove" that Jesus is equally God) that King David (who was born 1000 years before Jesus) is equally Christ and equally Jehovah God (just as trinitarians say Jesus is). Yes, we will "prove" David is the fourth person of the trinity (Quadrinity)!

Such techniques work better the more highly-regarded the person is by the original inspired Bible writers and the more writing they have devoted to that person. Since King David is reasonably high in both categories (though not nearly as high as Jesus), we can expect to find a number of places where the language and idioms of the Bible writers are not completely clear to us today and a number of other places where the translator can choose a word definition that backs his interpretation (and ignore all the other meanings). Such places can be capitalized, punctuated, and "interpreted" in such a way that the translation will appear to modern readers to prove that David is the Christ (Messiah) and even God Himself!

I have chosen King David because there are enough words written about him in the scriptures (I could have just as well chosen Moses, Solomon, the Apostles, or a few others - see TRINTYPE study) to allow a few typical trinitarian-style "proofs" to be found.

* * * * * *

'Quadrinarian' proof that David is equally God

First, David is equally Christ with Jesus himself: Luke 9:20 tells us that Peter declared Jesus to be "The Christ [christon] of God." But 2 Samuel 23:1 also declares David to be "The Christ [christon in the Septuagint] of God"! Yes, Jesus and David are the one "Christ of God." Since the Christ is also God, as trinitarians know, then David, too, is God!

Second, God Himself calls Jesus "My Servant" [literally "the servant of me"] - Matt. 12:18; cf. Acts 3:13, RSV. He also calls David "My Servant" [literally "the servant of me"] - 2 Kings 19:34; Ps. 89:3. The person God calls "My Servant" is well-known to Bible scholars as The Messiah ("Christ" in the Greek translations),e.g., Is. 53:11 - see New Bible Dictionary (2nd ed.), p. 1093, Tyndale House Publ . Therefore David is equally Christ (and, therefore, also equally God).

Third, David claims the exclusive title of Christ (and God) by declaring himself to be the great "I Am" [Ego Eimi] at 2 Kings 15:26, Septuagint (2 Sam.15:26 in English Bibles) which when translated literally says: "Behold! I AM." (idou Ego Eimi). This is the very same exclusive title of God, as trinitarians well know, that Jesus claimed for himself at John 8:58: "Before Abraham was born, I Am [Ego Eimi]." David is Christ and God!

Fourth, David is actually addressed as Jehovah God!

1 Sam. 20:12 actually, literally says in all the ancient Hebrew manuscripts: "Then Jonathan said to David: 'Jehovah God of Israel, I will certainly sound out my father....'" (Compare KJV and JPS). Most Bible translators who are not Quadrinarians actually add to the inspired word of God at this verse to make it say: "By the LORD God of Israel" (NIV) or "I promise you in the sight of the LORD the God of Israel" (NEB) or "Jehovah, the God of Israel, be witness" (ASV, cf. NASB, RSV). But these translations are distorting and actually adding to the inspired word of God which clearly calls David "Jehovah God"!

Fifth, In 2 Sam. 14:20-22 we find David called "My Lord" - the title for Jesus and Jehovah. (cf. Acts 2:34; Jn 20:28; Ps. 8:1).

Sixth , also in this same highly significant passage David is being declared omniscient or all-knowing (which trinitarians well know is one of the exclusive, untransferrable qualities of God alone) - 2 Sam 14:20.

Seventh, 1 Kings 1:43 - "Jonathan answered Adonijah, 'No, for our lord king David has made Solomon king.'" - NRSV.

2 Chronicles 1:8 - "And Solomon said to God, 'Thou hast shown great and steadfast love to David my father, and hast made me king in his stead.'"

Eighth, and, again, to show the absolute equality of Jehovah God and King David we find David the King receiving equal worship with Jehovah God at 1 Chron. 29:20. Yes, the actual Hebrew of the original God-inspired scriptures says: "so the entire assembly praised Jehovah, the God of their fathers: they bowed low and worshiped [shachah] Jehovah AND THE KING." - cf. KJV.

The word 'worshiped' (shachah) used here is exactly the same word as used at 2 Chron. 7:3 (see The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, Zondervan, 1982). The praise of Jehovah included worship [shachah] of God and David! There is no separation of the two found here. They are inseparably bonded together in the very same expression of faith ("Jehovah and the king") and adoringly bathed in the same single united act of worship which recognizes and celebrates their one essence!

We also find David being worshiped at 2 Sam. 14:22. The Israelite Joab (whose name means 'Jehovah is the Father') actually worshiped David. The word used in the ancient Hebrew scriptures is shachah - the very same word translated "worship" at 2 Sam. 12:20 and 15:32 - see Strong's Concordance. This is also the same word used at 1 Kings 1:31 where the inspired word of God tells us that Bathsheba also worshiped David! - see Strong's.

Ninth, the King's throne in Israel was known as "the throne of Jehovah" - 1 Chron. 29:23. This very same throne was called (and continues to be called through the ages) "the throne of David." - Jer. 17:25. David is Jehovah God. Even at the end time when the Messiah sits down on Jehovah's throne, that very throne is called (not Jesus' throne, but) the throne of David! - Is. 9:7. The eternal throne of Jehovah is at the same time the eternal throne of David! David is Jehovah God.

Tenth, another, similar proof is that "the Son of God," Jesus, is also called "the Son of David"! (Luke 4:41; 18:38) The one Father of Jesus has both the title "God" and the name "David"! David is God!

Eleventh, we find 1 Chron. 29:29 literally saying that David is "THE FIRST AND THE LAST"! Strong's Concordance shows that the same Hebrew words used to identify Jehovah as the "First and Last" at Is. 44:6 are also used here to describe David. As trinitarians know, this is one of the prime identifiers for God (Is. 44:6) and also for Jesus as being equal to God (Rev. 1:17). So when we see David also called the "First and Last" (cf. Young's; LITV; KJV; NKJV; ASV; NAB; JPS 1917), we know absolutely that he is one of the Persons of the Holy Christhead and, therefore, also one of the Persons of the Holy Godhead!

And, Twelfth, in a final and conclusive confirmation we have proof of a Quadrinity (Jehovah, Jesus, Holy Spirit, and David):

Whereas the number three is never used in Scripture in any way that could reasonably be construed as proper evidence for a trinity (see the IMAGE study, note #8), the number four is clearly given in scripture as evidence of the Holy Quadrinity.

Some examples are listed in the trinitarian New Bible Dictionary (NBD):

"Four ... is one of the symbols of completion in the Bible." [So the complete identity of God will not be perfected until the four (complete) persons are known. - RDB.] "The divine name Yahweh has four letters in Heb. (YHWH)." - p. 845, second ed., Tyndale House Publ., 1984.

What could be more clear as to the four-person composition of God than the evidence found in the composition of his very own personal name? And what could be plainer than the evidence of David's place as the fourth member of this Quadrinity as shown by the four letters of his name (DWYD) in Hebrew. The very first letter of this significant name is the fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet; the very last letter is the fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

Thus, the "First and the Last" (see #11 above) of the composition of his name show his place in the composition of the four-fold God!]

"There were four rivers flowing out of the garden of Eden (Gn 2:10)." - NBD.

The living waters, the source of life flowing from God's Paradise is four. And God Himself is the source of life and the fountain of living waters (Jer. 2:13; 17:13).

"in his vision of the glory of God, Ezekiel saw four living creatures (ch. 1), and with these we may compare the four living creatures of Rev. 4:6." - NBD.

Yes, in the first chapter of Ezekiel we find a vision of God. And in this vision the single unitary God is represented by the one person who is seated on the throne at the top of the vision. But that is merely the upper part of the vision and is the part which represents the "Oneness" of God. The other half of the vision (the very foundation or structure of that "One" God) is composed strictly of four: The four "Living Beings" (NASB) upholding or composing that solitary God not only have four wings but each one also has four faces: a man's, an eagle's, a bull's, and a lion's.

Therefore we have a single person (symbolic of the oneness of the only true God) supported by four persons (symbolic of the four persons within that one Godhead). There can be no other reasonable explanation (since we discarded the "ridiculous" concept that God is a single person over 1600 years ago with the establishment of the trinity doctrine)!

Furthermore, each of the "Living Beings" (representative of the "Living God") in himself further symbolizes the Holy Quadrinity since each is described as having four faces. Yes, each person is represented with four faces. There is nothing more representative of a four-in-one God than a "Living Being" with four faces! Christendom itself in its 1600-year effort to symbolically represent a three-in-one God has frequently used a three-faced person (although there is absolutely no scriptural support for doing so).

Notice that these four faces of God are (1) an Eagle, (2) a Lion, (3) a Bull, and (4) a Man.

An Eagle represents the Person of the Father, Jehovah: Deut. 32:11, 12.

A Lion, of course can only represent Jesus: Rev. 5:5.

A Bull is figurative of power in the Holy Scriptures. ("Among an agricultural people [Israel] there could be no more natural symbol of strength and vital energy than the young bull." - p. 342, Vol. 1, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, Hendrickson Publ.) And the Holy Spirit is most often represented as power or vital energy - p. 269, The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1976; pp. 1136, 1137, 1139, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House, 1984; p. 344, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945 ed. (Also see the BOWHS study). Therefore the Bull is obviously the Holy Spirit.

But who is the fourth "Living Being" composing the one Godhead? Well, the information in the first part of this paper proves it is David. He alone (of the four) has been represented throughout the Holy Scriptures as a man! So the fourth face (that of a man) can only represent David! (You cannot actually disprove this "proof," and it is certainly as good as the very best trinitarian "proof" of this kind!)

Oh there are a few instances of a word being repeated three times (used for emphasis as it is sometimes even today: "mine, mine, mine!") or some other such usage that, by a great stretch of wishful imagination, somehow indicates to the believer that God is three-in-one (see the MINOR study, "Holy, Holy, Holy"). However, none are as clear and pointed as the following four fold declarations.

A. The word "Hallelujah" (and its Greek form "Alleluia") is a common OT Biblical praise of God and literally means "Praise Ye Jehovah" (pp. 29, 276, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ., 1982). This exclusive praise was always directed to Jehovah God only. So, when we find a single person seated on God's throne in Rev. 19:4, we need some other indication as to the "composition" of that "multiple" God (just as we did with the single person sitting on God's throne in Ezekiel's vision - see the "Four Living Beings" above).

The needed information is supplied when the exclusive four-syllabled praise ("Hallelujah") is deliberately stated four times in this very significant passage (Rev. 19:4-6) in the last book of Scripture. It is used nowhere else in the NT. But here in a book significantly called Revelation this common praise of Jehovah (only) of the OT is appropriately used in a significant fourfold way that clearly helps clear up the "Mystery" of the identification of the single True God!

B. Four times in his psalm of praise to God (Ps. 86) he (David) "confesses His name" (Jehovah). Obviously this also represents a four-fold Jehovah!

So, if you accept these trinitarian-type "proofs," the multiple-in-one God we must worship in truth is not three but four. Only Quadrinarians know the one true God (and eternal life)!

There is also the historical statement made by the very homes the Israelites built and lived within. Yes from about 1200 B.C. until the Babylonian destruction and exile, the Israelites built four-room houses. They could have built one-room houses signifying their living within the protection of a one-person God. Or they could have built three-room houses to figuratively show a trinity. But, no, the pre-dominant building, by far, which Israelites chose to cover and protect themselves was the four-room building.

For a different slant on trinitarian 'evidence' examine Redefinition (REDEF)

* * * * * *

Obviously I have not been able in a few hours on my own to produce as much "evidence" as thousands (at least) of trinitarian scholars have managed to create in thousands of years. And even though David is not as important a person (certainly not as much extravagant praise, symbolism, figurative language, and glorifying for him as for the Christ) and didn't have as many words written about him in the scriptures (less opportunity for coincidental title/description confusion and misunderstood usages/definitions, etc.) as we find for Jesus, I have still found a significant number of "proofs" and certainly could find many more.

Isn't it obvious from the testimony of the Jewish people throughout history that they never (and still don't) believed David was either the Messiah or God? Isn't that the reason the Scriptures don't (and don't need to) tell us outright that "David is not God Almighty"? There would have been absolutely no reason for such a statement until such time that "Quadrinarians" would have begun developing their new doctrine! The same thing holds true for the trinity doctrine which is not stated anywhere in scripture!

Is it really proper to assume (no matter how much we might want to believe such a thing) that the bits of evidence we can patch together to indicate David is part of a four-in-one God are a revelation from God to us at this later date? That we somehow have a better grasp on the Holy Spirit than did Moses, Isaiah, John, Paul, and even Jesus himself?

What we must keep in mind is that "wondrous mysteries" and marvelous "deep things" of all kinds can be "found" by anyone looking for them if they are allowed to use improper evidence. If we truly believe the entire Bible is God's word to us, we must make a great effort to use the entire Bible (not be "Cafeteria Christians") in determining an essential truth.

We must take into consideration the background of those who wrote the scriptures and those whom they were writing for at that time and place to understand their writing to the best of our ability. We must analyze other early writings of the Jews and of those who wrote about them (not as inspired scripture, but as insight into how that scripture should be understood). We must investigate the grammar and word definitions of NT Greek as used by those first Christians. And, above all, we must not use a type of reasoning (or "evidence") that can be used to "prove" nearly anything. Such reasoning has led to the myriad different faiths (divisions - hairetikos) so strongly condemned in the Bible. The one Faith cannot stand divided (Matt. 12:25) anymore than the one Lord, and the one God and Father of all (Eph. 4:5, 6) can stand divided. Speculation is great fun, but the essential truths that lead to eternal life must not be determined by it.

This means that we must not accept the King David/Quadrinity evidence or anything like it, whether we "believe it in our hearts" or not. The thousands of sects (both in Christendom and other religions) which contradict each other's "Truths" simply cannot all have the essential truths any more than they can be called the "one Faith," but they all have the strong belief "in their hearts," and most use this very same improper type of "evidence" to convince others and to help retain the faith they have.

Real evidence to counteract this counterfeit type evidence can also be illustrated with the King David/Quadrinity example. Even if all the fudge factors used by trinitarians (e.g. "God" and "Jehovah" sometimes means all three persons in the "Godhead," and sometimes only one of them, etc.; "In this scripture David is being spoken of in his role as a man, but in that scripture he is in his role of God"; etc.) are used by "Quadrinitarians," we have enough real evidence to convince any unbiased, objective jury. (The fudge factors, of course, make it impossible to absolutely prove the Quadrinity is false. Most objective, well-informed juries would reject such reasoning anyway and discard the "fudge factors, but even if they didn't, the preponderance of real, concrete, proper evidence should prevail.)

We know that God's people never believed anything like it for thousands of years. The Jews who revered David never considered him God. The first Christians never considered him God. The Jews never believed in a multiple-oneness god of any kind (we can't even find that they were even aware of the similar three-in-one concept found in some early pagan religions - see the ISRAEL study). The Holy-Spirit-guided first Christians never believed in a multiple god of any kind (see the CREEDS study). Again, it appears that the very concept may have been unknown to them during the first century. This evidence from all the scriptures and all the writings of all the Jews and all the writings of very first Christians and all the writings about the Christians by their non-Christian contemporaries is overwhelming when compared to the type of evidence (no matter what the quantity of it) of the Quadrinitarians!

A proper analysis of the entire Bible shows there are alternate understandings to all the Quadrinitarian "evidence." These alternate understandings are more in line with the teaching of the entire Bible, Jewish and first Christian teachings, and Bible language, usage, and customs of the time and people involved. (Some of these alternate understandings do not appear to fit the scriptures quite as well - or be quite as pleasing/fascinating to the modern reader - but they, nevertheless, are not only possible interpretations but are, by far, the most probable interpretations.) There is no other way to disprove this doctrine which I just made up. Only adhering to proper evidence will assure proper understanding. Without it chaos, false doctrines, and division (hairetikos) triumph. Although we can't absolutely prove it to the satisfaction of those who accept "Quadrinity"-type evidence, David is still clearly not equally God.

It is exactly the same with the trinity doctrine. Throughout the history of the Jews and Judaism (which included first century Christians) one person alone was known as God: Jehovah, the Father (see the ISRAEL study). God was never 'God the Son,' 'the Messiah,' 'the Only-begotten,' etc. The Father alone was called Jehovah, a singular personal name. Anyone known as 'son of God' or 'son of man' was never considered to be God!

* * * * * *

Like scriptural "proof" for the Godhood of Jesus and the Holy Spirit the above "evidence" for the Godhood of David is frequently based in factual statements. It's the interpretation of those statements (and the ignoring of other important facts that would help find the proper interpretation) that erects the biggest barrier to truth.

I have, like many trinitarians, taken partial truths (and carefully avoided telling certain very important facts) to construct a "Quadrinity" doctrine of my own. I have (in most cases) told the truth, but not the whole truth. And then I have built a false doctrine on the base of those partial truths (with the help of a few outright lies also).

If I had seen the above "evidence" before I had made a careful extensive study of such methods, I might have been very impressed. And if I had grown up with such a belief (or fallen in with those I liked and respected who had such a belief), I probably would have swallowed it all hook, line, and sinker.

But I now know how this kind of deception works and can explain how each one of these David = Christ and David = God "proofs" is either clearly wrong or at least incredibly unlikely when compared with all the other honest interpretations (the whole truth) coupled with the overwhelming evidence of the rest of scripture (and other early evidence) concerning David.

But even if a person didn't have the opportunity to check out these "proofs," he should still be secure in the truth of God's word. After all, even if I and others like me translated most of the Bibles available today favoring the "Quadrinity," sincere God-seekers could still find the truth. The overwhelming, clear, often-repeated statement of the rest of the Bible about exactly who the God of the universe is and exactly who the Messiah is and exactly who King David was would still overwhelm the false message given by the places where I had interpreted and translated the above scriptures as evidence for a "Quadrinity"!

Even in trinitarian translations we find many clear statements of who God is. For example, John 17:1, 3 in the trinitarian New English Bible (jointly produced by England's Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Anglican Churches) is translated "Father,.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God."

1 Cor. 8:6 tells us: "for us there is just one God, the Father who is the source of all things" - AT (see TC study).

1 Cor. 11:3 says: "the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." - RSV.

Gal. 3:20 in the highly trinitarian The Amplified Bible (Zondervan) says: "There can be no mediator with just one person. Yet God is [only] one PERSON." - (Bracketed word, "[only]", is in The Amplified Bible.)

Eph 1:17 - "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom" - NIV.

Eph 4:5, 6 - "There is but one ... God and Father of all" - AT.

And, of course, there are hundreds of scriptures saying Jehovah alone is God. (e.g. "I am Jehovah and there is no one else. I alone am God." - Is. 45:6, Living Bible. And, "Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea let them be put to shame and perish: That men may know that thou whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth." - Ps. 83:17-18, KJV, and "until they learn that you alone, Jehovah, are the God above all gods in supreme charge of all the earth." - Ps. 83:18, Living Bible. Jehovah is the Father (Is. 64:8). but not the Messiah ("Jehovah saith unto my Lord [the heavenly resurrected Jesus], Sit thou at my right hand" - Ps 110:1, ASV, cf. Acts 2:34-36. And Micah 5:4, speaking of the Christ, says "And he [Jesus] shall stand, and shall feed his flock in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his God." - ASV.).

And the testimony of many ancient writers, historians, official records, etc. all testify to the truth that the faithful Jews never considered God to be more than one person, the Father, Jehovah. And, of course, they never considered Jehovah to be more than one person. Even unfaithful Israelites who sometimes honored more than one god never considered Jehovah to be more than one God! This is the testimony of all who wrote of the Jews and their God, including all ancient Jewish writers (including the inspired Bible writers) themselves! See the ISRAEL study.

This very same truth is witnessed to by the very first Christians (1st and second centuries) and those ancient writers who wrote about them! See the CREEDS study. The burden of proof of a "trinity" falls squarely on the shoulders of those who insist that it is the truth that must be believed in by all Christians. The fact that it has come to dominate all Christendom since the late 4th century (because of the power and insistence of the pagan Roman Emperors in 325 A.D. and 381 A.D. - see HIST study) and, is therefore promoted in nearly all churches, Bible translations, study books, etc., does not make it part of the true worship Christians must have. Jn 4:24; 17:3.

We should also expect that the God who inspired the Bible in the first place might even send someone to our door who could provide a Bible properly translated to show the essential truths (John 17:3) and someone who would be able and willing to expose and explain that truth to us.

Of course the final requirement for the seeker of truth is for him to allow the whole truth to be heard. God does not force his truth but wants those who are willing to seek it. - Proverbs 2:3-5.

Barnes commentary on the sacred name

יהוה yehovâh. This word occurs about six thousand times in Scripture. It is obvious from its use that it is, so to speak, the proper name of God. It never has the article. It is never changed for construction with another noun. It is never accompanied with a suffix. It is never applied to any but the true God. This sacred exclusiveness of application, indeed, led the Jews to read always in place of it אדוני 'adônāy, or, if this preceded it, אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym, to intimate which the vowel points of one of these terms were subscribed to it. The root of this name is חוה chāvâh, an older variety of היה hāyâh, which, as we have seen, has three meanings, - "be" in the sense of coming into existence, "be" in that of becoming, and "be" in that of merely existing. The first of these meanings has no application to God, who had no beginning of existence.

The last applies to God, but affords no distinctive characteristic, as it belongs equally to all objects that have existence. The second is proper to God in the sense, not of acquiring any new attribute, but of becoming active from a state of repose. But he becomes active to the eye of man only by causing some new effect to be, which makes its appearance in the world of sensible things. He becomes, then, only by causing to be or to become. Hence, he that becomes, when applied to the Creator, is really he that causes to be. This name, therefore, involves the active or causative force of the root from which it springs, and designates God in relation with the system of things he has called into being, and especially with man, the only intelligent observer of him or of his works in this nether world. It distinguishes him as the Author of being, and therefore the Creator, the worker of miracles, the performer of promise, the keeper of covenant. Beginning with the י (y) of personality, it points out God as the person whose habitual character it has become to cause his purpose to take place. Hence, אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym designates God as the Everlasting, the Almighty, in his unchangeable essence, as he is before as well as after creation. יהוה .noitaer yehvâh distinguishes him as the personal Self-existent, and Author of all existing things, who gives expression and effect to his purpose, manifests himself thereby as existing, and maintains a spiritual intercourse with his intelligent creatures.